Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
Since then Craig Markwardt has independently processed
the raw data using IDL software and has confirmed both
the sense and magnitude of the anomaly:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208046

George

Yes, I know. He made a very nice job. However: my interpretation
is the correct one: the collected residual is the cumulative
Hubble redshift for the distance of signal travel. Also, it verifies
the value of independently calculated theoretical Hubble wavelength
doubling time constant at Hd=4.234 billion years.

Your statements are incorrect. None of my plots or conclusions are
based on accumulation of frequencies or times. In particular, Figure
3 of my paper shows the observed minus calculated frequency for a
*single* round trip for a transmission on a particular calendar date.
The residuals reflect that the received frequency is slightly higher
than expected (ie, a slight blue shift).

Therefore, your conclusions associating the Pioneer effect with the
Hubble recession are unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

CM

You are using data provided to you. We were talking about beat
frequencies as I recall. I really would like to get to the end of this
issue, but 'somehow' it does not seem possible without a new
experiment. Which is proposed by JPL...

You have not provided any substantial criticism of my analysis, only
innuendo. On the other hand, I can claim that my analysis included
all major effects including spacecraft motion, earth motion, earth
rotation, precession, nutation, polar motion, and (optionally)
tectonic drift. All of these effects are clearly detectable in the
Doppler signal, and thus verify that the analysis was performed
correctly.

What I suspect: the data is already a cumulative sum of residuals,
presented as a function of accumulated light time. You - all NASA related
parties - use this data to present it as a calendar day related data.
It is simply not true, but you get the verification of your bigbangology.
Which is the object of the exercise.



I think so, you are not in position to define the validity of my
conclusions. Nobody is.

You are making unsubstantiated and incorrect claims about work that I
have done myself.

No, I'm not.

The magnitude of the Pioneer anomaly is too large
by many orders of magnitude to be the Hubble effect, and it is
apparent as a slight *increase* in frequency compared to the expected
Doppler frequency.

PLease check it: if you take the 'calendar time' for the 'signal travel
time' you get the magnitude just perfect for the Hubble effect. Also,
since the record is beat frequency - and the insinuation of sign
convention - the (*increase*) of frequency means *decrease* of really
observed frequency - as it been reported in the early days.

I leave no ambiguity in my paper, and further I
fully agree with the Anderson (2002) result, in terms of magnitude and
sign.

CM

I agree with that. You made a very nice verification: the effect is really
there! HOwever, you just don't have the clear picture what's really there.

And I agree with Anderson at al.: it is necessary to make dedicated
experiments to find out.

That's all!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

(Aladar) writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
[ ... ]
You have not provided any substantial criticism of my analysis, only
innuendo. On the other hand, I can claim that my analysis included
all major effects including spacecraft motion, earth motion, earth
rotation, precession, nutation, polar motion, and (optionally)
tectonic drift. All of these effects are clearly detectable in the
Doppler signal, and thus verify that the analysis was performed
correctly.

What I suspect: the data is already a cumulative sum of residuals,
presented as a function of accumulated light time. You - all NASA related
parties - use this data to present it as a calendar day related data.
It is simply not true, but you get the verification of your bigbangology.
Which is the object of the exercise.

This conclusion is unsubstantiated. None of the effects of earth
motion, earth rotation, precession, nutation or polar motion are
cumulative in any fashion, and neither is the anomalous Pioneer
acceleration. The "calendar day" is quite simply the date of
observation, no "accumulation" was performed or required.


PLease check it: if you take the 'calendar time' for the 'signal travel
time' you get the magnitude just perfect for the Hubble effect. Also,
since the record is beat frequency - and the insinuation of sign
convention - the (*increase*) of frequency means *decrease* of really
observed frequency - as it been reported in the early days.

I am not insinuating any sign. I am declaring explicitly that the
received frequency was slightly higher than expected. A putative sign
error would have been hideously obvious, since all the other Doppler
terms are very strongly imprinted in the signal. Therefore your
claims are unsubstantiated, and your conclusions are irrelevant.


CM

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
What I suspect: the data is already a cumulative sum of residuals,
presented as a function of accumulated light time. You - all NASA related
parties - use this data to present it as a calendar day related data.
It is simply not true, but you get the verification of your bigbangology.
Which is the object of the exercise.

This conclusion is unsubstantiated. None of the effects of earth
motion, earth rotation, precession, nutation or polar motion are
cumulative in any fashion, and neither is the anomalous Pioneer
acceleration. The "calendar day" is quite simply the date of
observation, no "accumulation" was performed or required.

However, the Doppler data is 'averaged' - which I suspect is the
accumulation, adding the residuals and adding the light times, signal
travel times to match the assigned timetags. This conclusion was
substantiated by the response to my very first question, related to
the Pioneer 10 anomalous Doppler observations.



PLease check it: if you take the 'calendar time' for the 'signal travel
time' you get the magnitude just perfect for the Hubble effect. Also,
since the record is beat frequency - and the insinuation of sign
convention - the (*increase*) of frequency means *decrease* of really
observed frequency - as it been reported in the early days.

I am not insinuating any sign. I am declaring explicitly that the
received frequency was slightly higher than expected. A putative sign
error would have been hideously obvious, since all the other Doppler
terms are very strongly imprinted in the signal. Therefore your
claims are unsubstantiated, and your conclusions are irrelevant.


CM

But again: how to explain than the proposed test, made by the
authors?!

Is there a clearly defined 1. we sent this frequency, 2. we should get
this frequency and 3. we got as much higher then expected frequency -
unexplained but at least clear picture as you are trying to suggest?

From here it looks differently: the processing of large amounts of
signal travel time related Doppler data resulted in a drift of
returned signal's frequency toward the longer wavelengths (frequency
deficit) showing the Hubble redshift, equal to the distance of the
signal travel. The presentation of these data files is causing the
different interpretations.

Again, I agree with the authors, for a clear picture repeated tests
are necessary with clear records of sent frequency, clearly and
precisely measured distance and clearly recorded returned frequencies.

As I see, even you avoid a clear factual declaration about the
records.

In light of the early reports, your standing is too risky: you may be
wrong.

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
[...]
The "calendar day" is quite simply the date of
observation, no "accumulation" was performed or required.

[...]

I am not insinuating any sign. I am declaring explicitly that the
received frequency was slightly higher than expected. A putative sign
error would have been hideously obvious, since all the other Doppler
terms are very strongly imprinted in the signal. Therefore your
claims are unsubstantiated, and your conclusions are irrelevant.


CM

(I hate to do it again, but in fact I'm leaving for two weeks.)

Are you really saying that the error in JPL location determination - as
a result of cummulative error in the velocity determination - is in
order of light seconds?!

In that case the claims that we know anything about gravity is
substantiated, and great many conclusions are irrelevant -
on the establishment side...

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

(Aladar) writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
What I suspect: the data is already a cumulative sum of residuals,
presented as a function of accumulated light time. You - all NASA related
parties - use this data to present it as a calendar day related data.
It is simply not true, but you get the verification of your bigbangology.
Which is the object of the exercise.

This conclusion is unsubstantiated. None of the effects of earth
motion, earth rotation, precession, nutation or polar motion are
cumulative in any fashion, and neither is the anomalous Pioneer
acceleration. The "calendar day" is quite simply the date of
observation, no "accumulation" was performed or required.

However, the Doppler data is 'averaged' - which I suspect is the
accumulation, adding the residuals and adding the light times, signal
travel times to match the assigned timetags. This conclusion was
substantiated by the response to my very first question, related to
the Pioneer 10 anomalous Doppler observations.

Your suspicion about the "accumulation" of light travel times is
incorrect. I performed no such accumulation. None of the earth
motion or rotation effects were accumulated. You are simply wrong.

[ Markwardt: ]
I am not insinuating any sign. I am declaring explicitly that the
received frequency was slightly higher than expected. A putative sign
error would have been hideously obvious, since all the other Doppler
terms are very strongly imprinted in the signal. Therefore your
claims are unsubstantiated, and your conclusions are irrelevant.


CM

But again: how to explain than the proposed test, made by the
authors?!

Is there a clearly defined 1. we sent this frequency, 2. we should get
this frequency and 3. we got as much higher then expected frequency -
unexplained but at least clear picture as you are trying to suggest?

Markwardt, gr-qc/0208046:
By the end of the data span in 1994, the frequency of the received
Doppler signal is higher than expected by approximately +2.7 Hz in a
single round trip.


Are you really saying that the error in JPL location determination - as
a result of cummulative error in the velocity determination - is in
order of light seconds?!

You erroneously presuppose that the change in light travel time would
be of order light seconds. There is no observational range data for
Pioneer 10, so the light travel cannot be constrained well. In fact,
the effect of 0.5 * a_P * t^2, over the 7 year time span of my
analysis would be of order 0.05 lt sec; and over the 11 year span of
the Anderson paper would be 0.1 lt sec. This level of change is not
distinguishable in the Doppler residuals, compared to other sources of
Doppler measurement error.


CM

Aladar wrote:


Are you really saying that the error in JPL location determination - as
a result of cummulative error in the velocity determination - is in
order of light seconds?!

In that case the claims that we know anything about gravity is
substantiated, and great many conclusions are irrelevant -
on the establishment side...



Since you are going away for two weeks, take a copy of
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208046 with you and study it
at length.

-Sam